How dare *YOU* criticize *THIS* war or *THESE* war plans

[chavvdarrr]

There will be fighting for years in Afghanistan, but you must admit, the difference between the US occupational situation and the Soviet occupation situation, are qualitatively different.

Few differences between USA&Soviet "occupation" of Afghanistan.
1) In 80's Afghan rebels had support from USA and Pakistan. No support now from anywhere
2) In the beginning of Soviet occupation, resistence was relatively "weak" compared to what happened later.

-We're in Baghdad proper after 2 weeks of fighting; having traveled over 250miles in ~ 3 days. Well beyond anything accomplished thus far in mechanized warfare.

This will be great if you manage to get out of Baghdad. I hope so, but it's too early to sing songs IMHO.
Besides, the choosen tactics to "run ahead" could become devastation. Iraq was consulted before the war from retired Russian generals (its confirmed). The setup now looks definetely a lot like Stalingrad just before Russian started offensive in winter 43. By any info we knew 3rd infantry is heavily outnumbered with long lines of supply, fresh reinforcements are at least 1 week away IMHO ( I may be wrong).

-We've taken under 20 American dead and a smiliar amount for the Brits.

? 20? Last time I read for 50 confirmed, 15 MIA, and I read that official data are 3 days old , and confirmed means US army have the body. Ah, and 90% of Brits were killed by US cowboys (according to BBC)

-The Iraqi government is in shambles, there is no Command & Control structure.
-The much 'vaunted' Republican Guard has been routed and a few divisions are operating at ~15-20% after an encounter.

You're sure? They saw US army and become operating @20% ? Then where are their tanks ?! destroyning 2 armoured divisions should give no less than 200 destroyed tanks. I see no pictures... nor confirmation.

-There are, AFAIK, no Oil fires buring in Iraq

But Haliburton has its contract ... yea, everyone knew it 2 months ago, why should we be surprised?

-The number of Iraqi killed are astronomical, the 3rd ID alone killed over 400 in a little over a day.

Probably. Still no confirmation.

-The collateral damage to the indigenous population has been minor.

Yes, less than 2000 dead that's really small damage.

 

[Lezmaka]

Yes, less than 2000 dead that's really small damage.

lol, where do you get your numbers from?

i guess technically, you're correct, although anyone could say less than 1 million and it still wouldn't be wrong.

By the way, it's more like a 1/4 to 1/3 of that if you believe the numbers at the iraqi body count site. Although, it doesn't seem they always try to find out who caused the deaths (US/UK or other Iraqi's). And if you think civilians were killed only by US/UK, then you obviously have no idea whats going over there, or has been for the past 20 or so years..

 

[chavvdarrr]

Let's just hope with every day war is closer to its end.
last news are either very good (ie Iraqi troops loosing motivation), or very bad (if its setup from them). Next 2-3 days will clear the situation.

 

[epicstruggle]

I have yet to see one named, current, military officer on record.

Lt. Gen. William Wallace. Now you have.

Actually Wallace only said that they didnt war game against the some of the tactics used by the iraqis. Like suicide bombing, soldiers putting on and off their uniforms, some other non-standard tactics.

but where has that gotten them(iraq), nothing, they killed a hand full of soldiers, and lost major parts of their country. Parts of Bhagdad have fallen/falling. So wallace can just STFU.

later,

 

[Joe DeFuria]

More on "disgruntled retired Army officers":

http://www.mediaresearchcenter.com/cyberalerts/2003/cyb20030402.asp#2

Barry McCaffrey versus Barry McCaffrey. In an op-ed in Tuesday's Wall Street Journal the former Army General turned NBC News military analyst praised the successful military strategy against Iraq: “Gen. Tommy Franks's superb air-land-sea forces have achieved total air dominance, sunk the remainder of the Iraqi navy, and achieved a blitzkrieg success in plunging an Army-Marine three-division task force 300 miles into Iraq up to the gates of Baghdad.”

But a New York Times news story the same day quoted McCaffrey denouncing the military strategy as a failure. “Their assumptions were wrong," McCaffrey told the Times, complaining: “They went into battle with a plan that put a huge air and sea force into action with an unbalanced ground combat force."

 

[Silent_One]

chavvdarrr wrote:

But Haliburton has its contract ... yea, everyone knew it 2 months ago, why should we be surprised?

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5043&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=20

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I have yet to see one named, current, military officer on record.

Lt. Gen. William Wallace. Now you have.

Actually Wallace only said that they didnt war game against the some of the tactics used by the iraqis. Like suicide bombing, soldiers putting on and off their uniforms, some other non-standard tactics.

Lol...the media at it again.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/03/pageoneplus/corrections.html

front-page article on Tuesday about criticism voiced by American military officers in Iraq over war plans omitted two words from an earlier comment by Lt. Gen. William S. Wallace, commander of V Corps. General Wallace had said (with the omission indicated by uppercasing), "The enemy we're fighting is A BIT different from the one we war-gamed against."

Do you have another military officer in mind, pxc?

 

[kid_crisis]

Yes, less than 2000 dead that's really small damage.

Here's a snip from the article about the Iraqi lawyer (Mohammed) who helped save Jessica Lynch's life. He's talking about the Fedayeen:

"Mohammed recalled that, after the war began, he watched them (the Fedayeen) drag a dead woman’s body through the street, apparently killed because she waved at a U.S. helicopter."

http://www.msnbc.com/news/895233.asp?0cl=cR

Is that one of your 2000 dead, Chavvdarr? I suppose you could say that it was the U.S. helicopters pilots fault, since if he hadn't flown over she wouldn't have waved at them and gotten killed.

Is that what you would say Chavvdarr? Do you really want to quote death statistics from an administration/regime that would allow this kind of thing to happen?

 

[Goragoth]

A civilian killed by the regime that would not have been killed if the US had not invaded is still partly the US' fault. Any human being dead by human hand is a dispicable thing no matter what the cause. True, more may die if Saddam stays in power but it still does not make the war just or right. It may make it neccessary and the lesser of two evils but it is not good and there are no winners. Whenever a human is murdered (and I believe that murder is still the right word for a soldier killed in war) it is a terrible thing for humanity as a whole. I do not condem this war, it may well be the right thing to do (although I think this cannot be judged until years after it is finished) but it cannot be looked upon with joy because it signifies everything that is wrong with humanity. Without the war and greed all people could be living comfortably and in security.

But I rant on. It is not the US that has caused this conflict to happen for without a reason they would not have attacked but they do carry some small responsibility for every death in this war. It is Saddam and his Baath party cronies that are the real devils.

 

[epicstruggle]

you know goragoth, you and people who think like you have may be killed more innocent people than anyother reason alone. Conflicts would be resolved sooner, with less deaths if we did not have to wait to convince the likes of you that the ends justified the means. Look in a perfect world there would be no evil, and everyone would live a free life. HOWEVER we dont live there. And as long as there are evil people we will have to fight them while they are trying to rise to power. If the do rise to power then more will die to bring them down. There were many dictators that should have been taken out before they had a chance to murder millions of people. To save millions, i would not mind sacrificing thousands.

The question i like to ask people like you is, "if you had to save a thousand people, would you if you had to kill one inncent child?"
I would not hesitate. Would you?

later,

 

[Barnabas]

To save millions, i would not mind sacrificing thousands.

Depends on saving who from what.

The question i like to ask people like you is, "if you had to save a thousand people, would you if you had to kill one inncent child?"
I would not hesitate. Would you?

Of course i wouldn't have hesitated to save a thousand iraqis who recently died as collateral damage by sacrificing George W. in his early years.

We don't know what the future brings so it might be entirely possible that the future of this particular innocent child may well be worth the lives of those thousand people. By all means you may just be about to kill the reborn Jesus Christ (assuming you yourself carry out the 'sacrifice', of course).
The only case where such a descision can be made easily is when it comes down to the choice of saving a thousand people or yourself.

 

[Silent_One]

epicstruggle wrote:

The question i like to ask people like you is, "if you had to save a thousand people, would you if you had to kill one inncent child?"
I would not hesitate. Would you?

It's not so easy. As in the book Sophie's choice (and movie starring: Meryl Streep) by William Styron, making a choice like that is heart wrenching. I would like to think I could easily make what seems the obvious choice but I would be haunted.

Barnabas wrote:

The only case where such a descision can be made easily is when it comes down to the choice of saving a thousand people or yourself.

Made Easily? No situation like that is easy. Most people would be crapping their pants. The only time things get easier is when you don't see them, don't have to look the child in the eyes, when their the "enemy". War sucks, none of it is "easy", and these hypothetical would be gut wrenching.

 

[Barnabas]

Made Easily? No situation like that is easy. Most people would be crapping their pants. The only time things get easier is when you don't see them, don't have to look the child in the eyes, when their the "enemy".

I think you got me wrong there. I was talking about a situation where you were required to sacrifice your own life and not that of another.

 

[Silent_One]

I was talking about a situation where you were required to sacrifice your own life and not that of another.

I know. And it woun't be easy.

 

[Deepak]

Now NSA Rice says that intially Iraq will be under a retd. US General.....US is showing its true intentions, this war was never to librate Iraqi people....

US/UK are hypocrites.....geneva conventions/WMD blah blah....

They dont want any-OTHER country to develop WMDs as if they only have some DIVINE right to posses them....

I think it is time to dis-arm US itself....their conventional weapons have killed more around the world than these so called WMDs....

everyone knows that...

US supported actively Osama/mujahideens against Russians in Afg in 80s.....

Saddam was US's fav ally in 1980s after he attacked Iran...so much for liberating Iraqis...

US/UK are supporting almost all the dictatorships in Gulf and around the world....these would not survive if US stop supporting them....question is why US is not concerned about poeple in these countries.....

The truth is US will do anything for OIL....for global domination....I think we are heading towards a global war.....pretty soon!

 

[PC-Engine]

Now NSA Rice says that intially Iraq will be under a retd. US General.....US is showing its true intentions, this war was never to librate Iraqi people....

US/UK are hypocrites.....geneva conventions/WMD blah blah....

They dont want any-OTHER country to develop WMDs as if they only have some DIVINE right to posses them....

I think it is time to dis-arm US itself....their conventional weapons have killed more around the world than these so called WMDs....

everyone knows that...

US supported actively Osama/mujahideens against Russians in Afg in 80s.....

Saddam was US's fav ally in 1980s after he attacked Iran...so much for liberating Iraqis...

US/UK are supporting almost all the dictatorships in Gulf and around the world....these would not survive if US stop supporting them....question is why US is not concerned about poeple in these countries.....

The truth is US will do anything for OIL....for global domination....I think we are heading towards a global war.....pretty soon!

Hmm...interesting..

 

[epicstruggle]

@deepak: Sigh, I read your post and feel saddened that you cant/refuse to see the truth. The US has always said that there might be an interm goververnment where some US general or other would governm Iraq for some time. Do you think a democracy can be built within a day or two. You need to create a judicial system, a police system, then there the actual problem of making at least 3 different groups (shias, sunnies, kurds) to agree on what kind of government they feel they want. This will take time and so it makes sense to set up a government that is only TEMPORARY.

I read the rest of your comment there deepak and cant see you actually studying much in school about history. So ill refresh it to you. (I thought the indian schooling system was improving but I guess im wrong.) Do you remember the USSR. If you do then you must recall that the US and USSR were not allies, and actually enemies for a while. At least until the US saw the crumbling of that "evil empire". Now during this time of conflict the US HAD to support some lesser evils to defeat the USSR growing domination of the world. Good thing they did, because the US did defeat the USSR.

Next time please read history books instead of quoting from antiwar people who actually have no idea what they are talking about.

later

 

[Deepak]

epic....I finished graduation in 2002...

Who says USSR was evil....just becse they were anti-US they were evil.....this attitude sucks...

BTW, I am not against US removing Saddam...he must go....but how do you explain US support to various dictatorships regimes around the world (gulf).....

US arrogance/attitude sucks....they think as if whatever BS they say people are going to believe....they have some divine authority to decide what is good for this world and what is not....they try to meddle in each and everything in the world...

 

[DemoCoder]

Well, if you can't figure out what was wrong with the USSR, obviously your diploma doesn't mean very much.

 

[Deepak]

Well, if you can't figure out what was wrong with the USSR, obviously your diploma doesn't mean very much.

They were defintely against US.....they did hate US....they had pointed thousands of their ICBMs at US cities....they had spies in US doing anti-US activities...sabotage.....etc...

so...what?

US was doing exactly this in USSR....

They were defintely against USSR.....they did hate USSR....they had pointed thousands of their ICBMs at US cities....they had spies in USSR doing anti-USSR activities...sabotage.....etc

I cant see how USSR is evil and US is not??